Tweet
who do you take
-
-
I'd back Norton by decision. -
I would rank Jersey Joe Walcott the better boxer of the two. He was a slick sob and could give Ken Norton a few difficulties along the way.
On the other hand, Norton was a good boxer himself, and he also carried with him more power. I don't see chin being a factor, as Walcott didn't carry sufficient power to stop Norton.
Considering that Nortons trouble were against hardhitting sluggers, not against skilled boxers, I think he would win this one. If he could give a close-to-prime Muhammad Ali hell, he should be able to defeat Walcott.
Ken Norton by UD.Comment
-
i do think chin is a factor. walcott went down twice in the first fight with marciano, once in the second. marciano's "suzie q" wasnt your average punch, but it shows that walcotts chin was vulnerable. a look at his record shows 18 total losses, several early in his career on points, as well as a few losses by ko to nobody fighters. however, the ko losses to marciano were at the end of a 23 year career.
nortons gangly style and power plus the size advantage would enable him to wear down walcott, eventually enough for a late ko.Comment
-
no way norton knocks out walcott. norton NEVER knocked out a fighter of walcotts caliber. shot quarry doesnt count. norton did not have enough power to knock out walcott. the only time in walcotts prime he was ever knocked out was by marciano and louis all time punchers. elmer ray a far bigger puncher norton was unable to floor walcott in 23 rounds.
walcott was defintley the bigger puncher than nortonComment
-
Norton in a close one. Norton was one of my favorite boxers growing up, he whippped Ali and he could whip Walcott.....Comment
-
Norton
You have to go with Norton on this one. Ken had a substantial size advantage on Walcott, around 3" in height, typically 15 to 20 lbs. in weight, and a longer reach (80" to 74" according to boxrec.com). Kenny was also a harder puncher and hard to hit because of his cross-handed style. Walcott had the edge in speed and perhaps overall boxing ability, but it wouldn't have been enough. Maybe Walcott's chin was as good or better, but Norton was murder on smaller guys. The only guys who ever beat him were bigger guys or heavy punchers (Jose Luis Garcia, Shavers, Cooney, Foreman).
I like old time fighters but I have to admit that Walcott seems to be over-rated among all the great heavyweights. Ranking Walcott ahead of some of the better modern fighters makes sense only in 1 way: Walcott nearly beat Marciano, who is usually highly ranked, well inside the top 10. I find it hard to believe that Walcott would have stood a chance against Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Vitaly Klitschko or other giant guys with decent skill.
Today, Walcott would be just a great cruiserweight, someone who would have to be favored over the best cruiserweights in the world today such as O'Neill Bell, Jean-Marc Mormeck, Dale Brown, etc. This is pretty much the best that I can say for him.Comment
-
norton by udComment
-
Kenny was also a harder puncher
walcott was a harder puncher than norton
Ranking Walcott ahead of some of the better modern fighters makes sense only in 1 way: Walcott nearly beat Marciano, who is usually highly ranked, well inside the top 10.
he also beat JOE LOUIS, ever heard of him? unfortunetley walcott was robbed. he also beat EZZARD CHARLES twice
THERES A LOT MORE GOOD NAMES THAN JUST ROCKY MARCIANO ON HIS RESUME!Comment
-
I'll take Walcott who was by far the better, more versatile, boxer. I think Norton tends to get overrated quite a bit because of his win(s) over Ali but he was not a big puncher (just looked the part of one) and really did not perform well against guys who could really hit. If he fought today, even with the talent being what it is, I'm not so sure he would be champion. Guys like Wlad Klitschko, Brewster, and even Samuel Peter would all have a great chance of KOing Norton.
I think prime Quarry takes him as well.Comment
Comment